Supreme Court Ruling on Waters of the US

[Bull_n_heat]

Looks like a few changes in what "counts" as waters of the US. Basically wetlands will need to have a perennial surface water connection to a water of the US for protection. My read is this is a severe weakening of wetland protection as much (the majority) of wetlands in the country are not connected with permanent surface waters (think riparian areas, depressional wetlands along a floodplain and sloughs of the Dakotas)

TRCP Statement on Supreme Court Weakening Clean Water Act Protections | Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

The Supreme Court's ruling in Sackett v EPA will be bad for the environment and for hunting and fishing.

www.trcp.org

 

[NRA4LIFE]

This may be a real victory for some of my neighbors and I. We have been dealing with this wetland BS for 25 years. The state here and King County count just about every puddle that forms as wetlands. It has been very irritating.

 

[jimh406]

Fyi, the ruling was 9-0. It was just another case of government agency overreach who transformed a rule to be what they felt it should be. Thankfully, they were stopped this time.

Details on why this was overreach/misruling are below. Btw, they didn't curtail it, they just put it back to where it should be had it not been expanded by the agency.

Supreme Court curtails Clean Water Act - SCOTUSblog

This article was updated on May 25 at 12:55 p.m. The Supreme Court on Thursday established a more stringent test to determine whether the Clean Water Act applies to a wetland. The ruling was a setback for the Environmental Protection Agency and a victory for an Idaho couple, Michael and Chantell

www.scotusblog.com

 

[11boo]

It was being far too abused. Good ruling.

 

[Redheadedshooter]

This has been abused for too long. The 9-0 ruling shows it

 

[EdP]

If states want to provide additional wetland protection they can do that. Having the federal gov't regulating every piece of land with a drainage ditch is not a good idea. Great decision by the SCOTUS.

 

[sram9102]

Grandpa tore out 40 acres of woods almost a decade ago that the state deemed a "wetland" its as dry today as it was then. The state still has him wrapped up in some legal issues. Hopefully this helps.

 

[Lou (Louis)]

Great news. Absolutely an overreach of power ( as evidenced by the fact that the 3 liberals concurred)

 

[DawnPatrol]

Good for land owners and developers; bad for flood control, water quality, fish, waterfowl, and wildlife.

Only 5 justices supported the restrictive new rule announced by the court; even Kavanaugh wouldn’t go for it. All 9 agreed the Sackett’s place wasn’t wetland under any valid definition.

The court drew a nice clean line. Unfortunately, that line (unlike EPA’s rule that had been in effect for basically 50 years) ignores the hydrological and ecological realities of how wetlands contribute to the healthy waterways that most Americans rely on and enjoy.

 

[Idaboy]

This has been abused for too long. The 9-0 ruling shows it

Actually there was a 2 part decision, it was 9-0 that the Sacketts should prevail, eg that their property,the wetland in question did not apply.....but it was a 5-4 split on the broader decision about the existing Law that has been now changed, and even Brett Kavanagh joined the minority that the broader decision puts water quality and water tables at risk. It's a complicated issue, and difficult that some people have had to navigate things like this in the past. but we probably need to do better in the long run with water regulations. While perhaps there are cases like the Sacketts where the law seemed too strict, the intent is not to make life difficult, but to preserve water tables etc.....continued draining off of wetlands is not a sustainable approach.
It's one thing to agree that the Sacketts should prevail....but why is SCOTUS actually making a new law/changing a law? I thought we ejected people to make laws....judicial activism is a slippery slope.

 

[Wrench]

This bs plagued the area Mike is in. One of his neighbors was prohibited from building due to "the endangered fur spider". Government over reach is serious business there.

 

[Bluefish]

while I did not read the whole ruling, this sounds like many other cases where the agency has made up rules more strict that the law. Imho a good thing to reign them in. Because this is based on laws, not constitutional rights, congress can do their job and change the laws, just like many other cases. They probably won’t, but if it’s a big enough deal they could.

 

[Pony Soldier]

In 40 years of working with the EPA, I found it to be an agency of immense egos and minimal technical background. In every case I found them incapable of working with other agencies let alone the public. I have looked at them as the leading lawyer funding agency.

We need to spend more time understanding not only the problem but all of the possible solutions. In a number projects to reclaim placer mining disturbances of the 1800s, the epa and corps of engineers declared the damage wetlands and we could not re-establish a viable stream or a fishery.

 

[Lou (Louis)]

In 40 years of working with the EPA, I found it to be an agency of immense egos and minimal technical background. In every case I found them incapable of working with other agencies let alone the public. I have looked at them as the leading lawyer funding agency.

We need to spend more time understanding not only the problem but all of the possible solutions. In a number projects to reclaim placer mining disturbances of the 1800s, the epa and corps of engineers declared the damage wetlands and we could not re-establish a viable stream or a fishery.

I understand your point.
Simple solution: the government wants to keep it as wetlands, buy it at FMV.
Seems pretty straightforward to me.

 

[jimh406]

Good for land owners and developers; bad for flood control, water quality, fish, waterfowl, and wildlife.

I know that is the ”talking point”, but SC had to make a decision because EPA wasn’t following the law.

EPA wasn’t trying to improve flood control, water quality, fish, waterfowl, or wildlife by preventing someone from building a house in the same area where others existed following similar methods.

 

[Wrench]

What it was is California money moving to north Idaho and turning it into California.

 

[P Carter]

Actually there was a 2 part decision, it was 9-0 that the Sacketts should prevail, eg that their property,the wetland in question did not apply.....but it was a 5-4 split on the broader decision about the existing Law that has been now changed, and even Brett Kavanagh joined the minority that the broader decision puts water quality and water tables at risk. It's a complicated issue, and difficult that some people have had to navigate things like this in the past. but we probably need to do better in the long run with water regulations. While perhaps there are cases like the Sacketts where the law seemed too strict, the intent is not to make life difficult, but to preserve water tables etc.....continued draining off of wetlands is not a sustainable approach.
It's one thing to agree that the Sacketts should prevail....but why is SCOTUS actually making a new law/changing a law? I thought we ejected people to make laws....judicial activism is a slippery slope.

This is not accurate.

The only dispute between the 5 and the 4 was the meaning of “adjacent”: does “adjacent” require a continuous surface connection (majority) or can it just be nearby (minority). All 9 justices agreed that EPA and Army Corp had attempted, by rule and by practice, to expand their jurisdiction *far* beyond what the statute actually meant. Not a single justice voted in favor of EPA/Army Corps’ interpretation.

This is not an example of judicial activism. SCOTUS didn’t change the law; epa and the corps were attempting to change the law. Plus, just look at the split: this was judicial activism only if you think Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson are *conservative* judicial activists; they also voted against the epa/corps interpretation, the only difference being they think adjacent” can mean “nearby” without a continuous surface connection.

 

[Lou (Louis)]

What it was is California money moving to north Idaho and turning it into California.

You have to be a special kind of stupid to leave a state which is a political s—-hole and then vote the exact same way in the new state.

 

[Idaboy]

This is not accurate.

The only dispute between the 5 and the 4 was the meaning of “adjacent”: does “adjacent” require a continuous surface connection (majority) or can it just be nearby (minority). All 9 justices agreed that EPA and Army Corp had attempted, by rule and by practice, to expand their jurisdiction *far* beyond what the statute actually meant. Not a single justice voted in favor of EPA/Army Corps’ interpretation.

This is not an example of judicial activism. SCOTUS didn’t change the law; epa and the corps were attempting to change the law. Plus, just look at the split: this was judicial activism only if you think Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson are *conservative* judicial activists; they also voted against the epa/corps interpretation, the only difference being they think adjacent” can mean “nearby” without a continuous surface connection.

Thanks for any clarity, but if it wasn't a 2 part decision than why the two different votes? Or separate vote/opinion 5-4 about the "adjacent water".... I said they agreed 9-0 that the Sacketts should prevail, but they clearly made a distinction about the adjoining surface, so that's a change that isn't delineated in the original law, correct? Why then did Kavanagh assert the majority opinion has "rewritten the clean water act?".... I interpreted that statement that a justice felt they were changing the law, which to me implies judicial activism. Appreciate any correction you have, but I said it was 9-0 that the Sacketts prevail, and obviously they should, but the way the majority wrote their "opinion" they gave a new definition, which will now be the standard. Other legal analysis implies past courts were unable to come to that interpretation, that somehow now these 5 majority justices could....with no new evidence, data, information....if nothing new, technology, science has come to light, and previous courts upheld, then why the new definition? It seems they decided to take it one step further..... Appreciate your insight.

 

[venado mula]

Sociopathic people trying to build homes where they shouldn't.